Does anyone have experience that would give a preference to the AWC T.H.O.R. Thundertrap Titanium (direct screw-on, no QD brake) versus the T.H.O.R. PSR (QD brake) on a semiauto platform (6.5 Grendel/.308)? Accuracy? Balance? Quietude?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Suppressors AWC T.H.O.R. Thundertrap Ti versus PSR Ti?
- Thread starter Nukes
- Start date
Re: AWC T.H.O.R. Thundertrap Ti versus PSR Ti?
Same balance, weight, sound on both models. The only real difference is mounting method.
Same balance, weight, sound on both models. The only real difference is mounting method.
Re: AWC T.H.O.R. Thundertrap Ti versus PSR Ti?
Thank you. In that case, what do you think of the AWC QD brake itself?
Thank you. In that case, what do you think of the AWC QD brake itself?
Re: AWC T.H.O.R. Thundertrap Ti versus PSR Ti?
Nukes, imo it is simply the most efficient, most precise QD available. I can't remember where I first heard this very configuration was designed as a collaborative effort between AWC and DTA. Recently, you will find it in the PGM kit for PSR as well. You can see the very same design picked up by TB a couple of years later.
As it depends of broad friction interface, it has no mechanical lock-up, therefor, some would argue it is not the best application for knock about applications. Er, except that it appears the only units that actually fail....are the mechanical lock-up units. Think not? Drop test them.
Its important to remember that any QD that is expected to also serve as a brake is limited by constraints. There is a very real dance between gas jet dwell disruption prior to the diffuser/primary with the can on and the requirement to efficiently redirect those same gas jets rearward for open atmosphere braking. In short, it all stops at about the .308. After that, the requirement to use surfaces areas broader that the diameter of a can as a brake port reflection surface comes into play . In other words, you can't stuff the right structure into the ass end of a can and have a truly top performing brake, or can. Flash hider? Sure, most gizmo units go that route for that reason. Flash suppression?, leave your can on, right? Keep it short, stout, simple (no forks) as with all QD you are using precious internal area for reasons other than actual suppression.
If you feel you need to have a QD and precision is your requirement, that right there? That is the best design there is. Asking me? Do not use QD.
AWC, the early design...
PGM at the PSR...
TBA, always seeking the highest accuracy...
Now, if your concerned about how the can will stack up.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3267879#Post3267879
Nukes, imo it is simply the most efficient, most precise QD available. I can't remember where I first heard this very configuration was designed as a collaborative effort between AWC and DTA. Recently, you will find it in the PGM kit for PSR as well. You can see the very same design picked up by TB a couple of years later.
As it depends of broad friction interface, it has no mechanical lock-up, therefor, some would argue it is not the best application for knock about applications. Er, except that it appears the only units that actually fail....are the mechanical lock-up units. Think not? Drop test them.
Its important to remember that any QD that is expected to also serve as a brake is limited by constraints. There is a very real dance between gas jet dwell disruption prior to the diffuser/primary with the can on and the requirement to efficiently redirect those same gas jets rearward for open atmosphere braking. In short, it all stops at about the .308. After that, the requirement to use surfaces areas broader that the diameter of a can as a brake port reflection surface comes into play . In other words, you can't stuff the right structure into the ass end of a can and have a truly top performing brake, or can. Flash hider? Sure, most gizmo units go that route for that reason. Flash suppression?, leave your can on, right? Keep it short, stout, simple (no forks) as with all QD you are using precious internal area for reasons other than actual suppression.
If you feel you need to have a QD and precision is your requirement, that right there? That is the best design there is. Asking me? Do not use QD.
AWC, the early design...
PGM at the PSR...
TBA, always seeking the highest accuracy...
Now, if your concerned about how the can will stack up.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3267879#Post3267879
Re: AWC T.H.O.R. Thundertrap Ti versus PSR Ti?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You can see the very same design picked up by TB a couple of years later. </div></div>
I know you didn't say this, but some people might assume it based on what you said. The TBAC "BA" brake and mount is not a copy of anything. It was developed by us independently from scratch and specifically to meet our goals. Our "BA" series was developed originally in 2009-2010 and was first offered for sale to the public in Feb of 2011. Some of the other "TOMB" systems discussed in this thread haven't even been public for a year yet. Compared to the "AWC, the early design" photo, there are at least two major differences between it and our mount that affect how it works.
Summary, we didn't "pick up the very same design"; it is likely the timeframes of development of these TOMB mounts was similar and for a similar reason (PSR bid); if one looks carefully there are differences between the "BA" mount design and the others.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You can see the very same design picked up by TB a couple of years later. </div></div>
I know you didn't say this, but some people might assume it based on what you said. The TBAC "BA" brake and mount is not a copy of anything. It was developed by us independently from scratch and specifically to meet our goals. Our "BA" series was developed originally in 2009-2010 and was first offered for sale to the public in Feb of 2011. Some of the other "TOMB" systems discussed in this thread haven't even been public for a year yet. Compared to the "AWC, the early design" photo, there are at least two major differences between it and our mount that affect how it works.
Summary, we didn't "pick up the very same design"; it is likely the timeframes of development of these TOMB mounts was similar and for a similar reason (PSR bid); if one looks carefully there are differences between the "BA" mount design and the others.
Re: AWC T.H.O.R. Thundertrap Ti versus PSR Ti?
Works for me. I would even go as far as to say the shorter the design the better as it translates to less precious real estate lost.
Works for me. I would even go as far as to say the shorter the design the better as it translates to less precious real estate lost.
Re: AWC T.H.O.R. Thundertrap Ti versus PSR Ti?
Rolling thunder 51, PM sent thanking you for the very helpful and lucid explanation of the engineering issues.
Rolling thunder 51, PM sent thanking you for the very helpful and lucid explanation of the engineering issues.
